January 23, 2004
The State of the Union's subtler points: Abstinence only sex education
Abstinence only sex education vs. Comprehensive sex education:
A Utilitarian Analysis
One under-discussed point from the State of the Union Address was Bush’s proposed increase in for abstinence only sex education. Here is a utilitarian analysis of this program’s history, future implications and alternative forms of sex education.
Abstinence only sex education vs. Comprehensive sex education:
A Utilitarian Analysis
One under-discussed point from the State of the Union Address was Bush’s proposed increase in for abstinence only sex education. Here is a utilitarian analysis of this program’s history, future implications and alternative forms of sex education.
A debate has emerged across our country over how to teach our young people about sex. Two distinct groups have emerged on this issue: on one side is abstinence only sex education proponents and on the other are those that favor of comprehensive sex education. No matter the method of education, the goals of both types of sex education are to reduce unwanted pregnancies and thus abortions as well as to reduce sexually transmitted diseases. Utilitarianism lends itself as a good medium to analyze this debate as there is clear empirical data that shows the effectiveness of each side in their stated goals in educating children and young adults about sex. Through empirical data the pain and pleasure resulting from each system can be analyzed. To facilitate this discussion I will compare Texas and Sweden. Texas is an example of state that has heavily instituted abstinence only sex education. Also, there been recent studies done on the effectiveness of this regime. In distinct contrast to Texas, Sweden is the example of a country that has had comprehensive sex education for over fifty years.
The underlying question to this discussion is whether sexuality education is needed. This question is important because many cultures do not view sexuality education as necessary. Furthermore, the belief in these conservative societies is that sex education will put sex into the minds of children prematurely, leading to earlier sex. Texas is an example of a conservative society and Sweden exemplifies a progressive society. In Children’s Sexual Thinking, Goldman and Goldman (1982) profess that children are sexual thinkers from birth. Children constantly seek information regarding sexuality and make their conclusion based on whatever information is available. Their evidence shows that, in comparison to Swedish children, American children were particularly ignorant of correct sexual information. The problem is that the American children and young adults were not aware that the information was incorrect and were ill prepared for sexual adulthood. Children will be curious about sex whether or not they are given correct information (Goldman 1982). Withholding information does nothing more than propagate ignorance. There also seems to be the negative consequences that are widely talked about in the United States and Europe of sexually transmitted diseases, teenage pregnancy and teenage abortions (Haffner 1996). This ignorance also infiltrates the realm of sexual satisfaction. These American children and young adults do not even know the basic sexual biology, and such ignorance certainly has an effect of sexual performance.
The United States is an enormous country. However, each individual state has almost total discretion in determining whether or not to have sexuality education. Furthermore, each state has the discretion to choose the material that their sexuality education program contains and the aims of the program. Texas is a state that has been the center of considerable debate because of their insistence on abstinence-only sex education. The focus of their program is to persuade young people to wait until marriage. Their program does this by teaching young people that sex is dangerous, contraceptives do not work and society accepts its young people to be virginal until marriage and straight (Connolly, 2003).
At the epicenter of the debate on sexuality education is Texas law Sec.28.004 of the Texas Education Code, which states that all sexuality education programs must “present abstinence from sexual activity as the preferred choice of behavior in relationship to all sexual activity for unmarried persons of school age” and “devote more attention to abstinence from sexual activity than to any other behavior.” The state law goes further in creating “a local health council to assist the district in ensuring that local community values and health issues are reflected in the districts human sexuality instruction.” The law bans condom instruction, and the only information provided about condoms is that they don’t work (Mariner, 2002).
The state law goes farther because of the community based clause. Homosexuality is taught as a “lifestyle that is unacceptable to the general public and that homosexual conduct is a criminal offence under state law” (Human Rights Watch, 2002). The repression is so extensive that even masturbation, a safe alternative to sex, is not mentioned in the curriculum. What is taught in the classrooms of Texas is even more chilling to children than what is not. As young as 12 and 13, children are indoctrinated into the abstinence only program. The program focuses on using medical examples, showing children what can happen if they have sex. The educator show slides of genital warts and diseased cervixes. The tactic is scare kids into not having sex. They are taught all the negative effects of sex and given abstinence as their only protection. The philosophy of these programs is that “sex education programs aren’t the proper venue for presenting information about contraceptive options. We tell students, ‘if you’re going to have sex, you need to see a health care professional’… It’s not the job of the school system to treat people who are engaging in risky behaviors” (Trubo, 2002). The Texas culture is against the idea that young people can have sex, and that it is normal. However, in reality the numbers show that abstinence among youth is not the norm.
Proponents of abstinence only sex education, like Leslee Unruh, argue that children understand the message of condom use and contraception. Unruh states “Just go to any public bathroom. I was in Atlanta, and we went to five restrooms in the mall, and every one of them had condoms…Every time I turn on the TV, I see information about condoms. We’ve been throwing latex at these kids everywhere. They are getting this information” (Trubo, 2002). These statements reflect the negative attitudes toward sexuality in Texas and the general lack of dialog about sex. It is hard to believe that kids are getting the information they need in such a hostile atmosphere, places were the dialogue between students and educators are censored by the government. Furthermore, the likelihood of a young adult approaching an educator and revealing that she is going to be sexually active seems remote.
The abstinence only program has the goal of reducing teen pregnancies and reducing STDs. The Texas program has shown little success in achieving its goal and may even cause more pregnancies and incidents of STDs. In 1998, Texas registered 123 pregnancies per 1,000 women age 15-19. In 1997, Texas ranked 9th in the U.S. in reported cases of Chlamydia (WHFPT, 2002). The problem is exemplified by the fact that those teens that “pledge” to be abstinent until marriage delay sex only for a matter of months, and when they do choose to have sex they tend to do so without protection (Trubo, 2002).
Analyzing the abstinence program from a strictly utilitarian perspective heads very negative results. It is plain that the pain that this policy inflicts on the youth of Texas far outweighs pleasure that the policy brings. The only pleasure that this policy could possibly bring is the pleasure that a few people will get for staying abstinent until marriage and being sure that one will stay pure and disease free. Considering that few people are able to achieve such pleasure from this policy and the pain that it inflicts because of increased instances of teen pregnancies and STDs make this program fail the moral arithmetic.
On the other end of the sex education spectrum is the experience of the Swedish youth. Sweden began mandatory sex education in all schools in 1956 with the goal of reducing the number of teenage mothers. The Swedish culture views sex as a general health and wellness issue. Sex is seen as a natural and necessary part of life. Sex is freely talked about within the family, further enhancing the work done in school. The first incarnation of the Swedish sex education program lasted until 1975. At this point, the program was determined not to be a full success because the rate of teenage mothers went down, but teen abortions went up. After 1975, the program became more extensive, and no longer “explicitly recommended abstinence when young; nor did it emphasize that sex should take place only within marriage” (Council, 1999). Sexuality education started at younger ages with more focusing on teaching contraception. The philosophy of the Swedish educational system is best described by Dr. Erik Centerwall of Sweden’s Ministry of Education: “The foundation of sexuality education is the freedom to choose, the freedom to enjoy, and the freedom to be [yourself]” (Yu-jung, 2002). He tempers his comments by stating that, “Sexuality is testing and understanding your ways of being while the education of sexuality will teach you to do it in a safe way”(Yu-jung 2002). The overall emphasis of the Swedish system is building a trust between the teacher and the students. More generally, it can be said that the Swedes believe that young people will act responsibly when they are given all the information.
This trust is built in the classroom. The sexuality teachers in Sweden are no longer given thick textbooks to memorize. Instead of strict guidelines, “much of the sexuality education in schools today comes from the exchanging experiences and learning with others” (Haffner, 1996). This mode achieves a sexuality education built on openness and respect where the approach is anything but “dogmatic and moralistic” (Haffner, 1996). The approach is further understood when considering adolescent sexual development. “When discovering their sexuality, young people are, at the same time, creating their own identity…they think themselves that people should not know about their sexual world….the task for educators is to break through the silence” (Haffner, 1996). The goal is to create a forum in which the children feel comfortable and can learn about sex and sexuality in a positive environment. Furthermore, the educator then must make the children see that they are normal and uniquely special. This process is called “normalization and individualization” and is a core part of the sexuality education philosophy of Sweden (Haffner, 1996).
Sweden also accommodates an open dialog about sex. Contraception is widely available and inexpensive. Sex education is grounded upon human rights (IEPFPD, 1999). The International Planned Parenthood Federation’s (1999) country profile of Sweden states that “Advice is free-of-charge and the cost of contraceptives is subsidized, with the exception of orals. Contraceptives are widely available and used.” Furthermore, in 1975 on demand abortions became free of charge and did not need parental approval.
The results of the Swedish system can be taken interpreted in two periods: 1956-1974 and 1975-present. In the first period, the goal of sexuality education was to reduce teenage fertility, and teenage pregnancies were reduced but mainly due to the use of abortion. Since this was not acceptable to the Swedish people, the sexuality education program was revised. The results of its second incarnation have been tremendous, especially considering the emergence of a third problem other than teen pregnancies and abortions: sexually transmitted diseases. Their approach is that “teenage sexual activity is neither undesirable nor desirable, but is inevitable. Teenage use of contraception was viewed as highly desirable because it would prevent both childbearing and abortion” (IEPFPD, 1999). In 1965 the Swedish teenage (age 15-19) fertility rate was 49 per 1,000; by 1984, it was 10 per 1,000. To compare, the U.S. in 1995 was 61 per 1,000 (IEPFPD, 1999). The results could have been due to several factors: teenagers were delaying sex, had sex less, used induced abortions at a higher level than before, or teenagers had become skilled in contraceptive methods. The data point toward the increased contraceptive use as being the most influential factor in reducing pregnancies and abortions, and Sweden has a relatively low rate of AIDS/STD’s compared to the rest of Europe and the United States.
The results of the Swedish sexuality education system are more than just biological because Swedes feel more positively about their sexuality, feel more positively about their first time sexual experiences and yet tend to only have three sexual partners in their life time (IEPFPD, 1999). The only negative aspect is that teens do start having sex an a relatively young age of 14 or 15, but those numbers are no lower than Texas for example, where the focus is on teenage abstinence.
Through a Utilitarian analysis the Swedish system does very well. It has been very effective at reducing the pain of unwanted pregnancies, abortions and STDs to the vast majority of its young people. Also the Swedish program leaves its young people with more positive feelings about their bodies and their sexuality. This leads to a clear positive quotient for the moral arithmetic.
It is one option to only attack the Texas system and identify its numerous short comings; however the Swedish example shows that there are other options that work in the world and that the Texans could draw on and create a system that works. The Swedish system does the best job in promoting the overall good. The abstinence only crowd could argue that teenagers having sex outside the bounds of a biblical marriage at all is a detriment to them and society, however this argument does not accept the fact that teenagers even with their abstinence training still have sex outside of marriage, and their training is only a detriment when these young people start having sex. The abstinence only sex education does not promote to overall good, and if anything causes more pain for the majority of young people having sex. The few young people who are already believe in abstinence maybe bolstered by this positive reinforcement of their beliefs, but that is a small gain for the detriments that come for the rest of society. The Swedish system on the other hand does the most overall good for the greatest number because the Swedes accept that teens will have sex and accept that in order to reduce the pain of teen pregnancies, abortions and STDs you have to teach comprehensive sex education.
Excellent topic and article about politics taking place both at state and national levels. We have close friends who employ the Swedish model with their 13 y.o. here deep in the heart of Texas. Their 13 y.o. has found a leadership role in middle school among students our 13 y.o. being one of them, since their 13 y.o. is very informed for her age and her friends look to her for information. Their 13 y.o. enjoys this since, until this year, she had few friends and was not very popular according to our 13 y.o. who has been given as much factual information as she requests.
We keep waiting for the bureaucratic boom to fall on our friend’s child and our own due to their sharing information that is not provided by the school system. But, I stand ready to challenge the concept that the state has more authority and legal rights to teach my child safe sexual health practices than we parents do.
Posted by: David R Remer at January 24, 2004 12:48 AMGreat article, thank you!
I’ll be linking to it via my blog.
Posted by: ceejayoz at January 24, 2004 10:26 AMI don’t think it’s so much a problem of “forbidden fruit” as it is about skewed attitudes about what sex and marriage are. I think as long as youths are ignorant about sex, they are more vulnerable to those among their peers and those senior to them who play on that ignorance for their own selfish ends.
We’ve abstracted a lot of sex and intimacy away from the social and communal meanings once associated them with. We’ve also thinned away the idea that sex is secondary to one’s relationship with the person.
We need to instill in children the idea that they should be fairly choosy about the people they engage in such activities with as they grow up, and that whatever they choose to do, there are risks involve that escalate with the level of emotional and physical intimacy.
Context is the most important things we must teach children. The anatomy and the biology are easy and less important in comparison.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 24, 2004 11:49 AMOne area this (excellent) article leaves out is information about the lives of adults whose scholastic sexual education was abstinence-only. Is the incidence of unwanted pregnancy higher in Texas than Sweden? What about the people who feel sexually satisfied in their marriage?
I think one important goal of sexual education ought to be engendering healthy and fulfilling adult sexuality. When evaluating curriculum for a subject like civics our criteria aren’t limited to children’s civic knowledge but the effect of the curriculum on children’s lives once they grow up.
I liken abstinence-only education to teaching that the only sure way to avoid alcoholism, alcohol poisoning, drunk driving, and behavior that’s regretted in the morning is teetotalism. While this may benefit some students who decide never to drink, it provides no information to help those who decide to drink. Without such information, they may not know how to drink responsibly and hence may be more likely to drive drunk, fall into alcoholism, and so forth. Abstinence and teetotalism should be taught as a strong option, but all reasonable options and their benefits and consequences should be taught.
Thanks for your post.
Posted by: Trevor Stone at January 24, 2004 02:00 PMWow.
I didn’t expect to read *this* kind of ideology-free material in the Conservative/Republican column!
I doubt any of this information, however accurate, will make a damn bit of difference to most social conservatives. The goal of those who advocate “abstinence only” education is NOT to combat teenage pregnancy, single motherhood, or STDs. The real goal is to allow politicians to appear righteous and to allow parents and teachers to completely abdicate any responsibility in teaching their children about the uncomfortable topic of sex. Like many current American social values (like the popularity of SUVs), “abstinence only” education programs put a higher priority on superficial appearances and simple convenience over truth, hard work, and concrete results.
I hope someone will write comments here to “refute” the above article. I’d love to read that!
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at January 24, 2004 02:09 PMThe problem is, that by itself, sex, like alcohol has a strong effect on people’s judgment. It’s the first drink that gets you drunk, as the AA people would say.
This culture’s problem isn’t the strong presence of sexuality in the media, but rather it’s intensification at the expense of so much else.
The grasping greediness that has become common in the business culture naturally has carried over into the entertainment culture that it runs. In that graspy greedy world, often enough, the instant gratification school of sexuality is made supreme over more realistic and more humane points of view on it.
In the face of that, abstinence is untenable. It should be presented as a choice, but it shouldn’t be presented simply as an abstract. Kids aren’t stupid. They’ll see people taking other paths with their lives, and they’ll take little of the abstinence argument to heart.
Abstinence must be presented in the context of the tension of the desire of both sexes simply to mate with the need to maintain stable societies and families. Kids need to learn about how different cultures throughout history managed to deal with these conflicts, with one point emphasized throughout: that sexuality will be a persistent moral issue with no easy answers available, and that one’s decision will have consequences.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 24, 2004 04:09 PMChristopher said, “I doubt any of this information, however accurate, will make a damn bit of difference to most social conservatives.”
Christopher, I am far from being a conservative, but, I think your brush is far too wide in painting social conservatives in this way. The Republican Party is a multi-faceted party and becoming more so with each year. I think your comment does generally apply to the Christian Right in the party, but, a great many social conservatives I believe would appreciate and acknowledge the benefits of such research if replicable and verifiable.
Posted by: David R. Remer at January 24, 2004 05:18 PMIf they teach masturbation as a form of abstinence, I have no problem with this, otherwise they are doing the porn industry a dis-service.
Posted by: Stephen VanDyke at January 24, 2004 06:36 PMI think where the Abstinence only sex education goes wrong is exemplified by the name of the progam itself: “Abstinence Only,” why can it not be “abstinence first.” I see nothing wrong in promoting abstinence as the only 100% safe form of birth control and protection for STD’s. But this approach where condoms are demonized because they are not 100% effective is rediculous. Nothing in life is 100%, with their logic birth control pills should be ripped from the shelves becuase they are only 99.5% effective! Would these people not allow kids to walk out the door becuase it is not 100% that they will come back. Life involves risk, being informed of those risks is the best way make sure that people make good choices, and when things do go bad, know why they went wrong.
Why is any of this “conservative?” some of you have asked: simple we live in a capitolist socienty, which is based on informed consumers making choices , infinite choices, on the manner in which they want to live their lives. It is the duty of the government to educate. This may not have been in the constition, but a lot has changed in 200 some odd years, and I think it can survive one addition to providing for national defence and governing interstate trade. The problem is that the government has not taken up the duty of education like it has national defense. I do not speek in terms of not giving enough funds for education (at least where I live (Rhode Island) what they spend in money is more than than adiquate). So this diatribe ends with the plea: if the government does not step in and create stong national standards for education across the board, the long term health of our country will be in jeapardy. But since the goverment has been beholden to teachers unions for far too long, others will step in and make sure that at least the top third of our children that go on to college will be ready for the challenges of college. The College board, creaters of the SAT has compleately overhauled the SAT to make it test more of what the student knows, more than a test of a hard to test, and unfair, “intelligence.” The new SAT will have the effect of dictating the curriculem accross the country.
Posted by: Miguel A. Teixeira at January 24, 2004 06:59 PMDavid, maybe you are correct that there exist “social conservatives” who are open to the idea that abstinence-only education might not work, and that teaching kids how to use condoms might be a better idea. Maybe they can be influenced by strong empirical scientific data.
But then they wouldn’t be social conservatives any more, would they? Social conservatism, by definition, puts strong personal moral values above all else, even truth and even, sometimes, above human lives. Morality, not practicality, is the foundation of a conservative society. I mean, it is an axiom of social conservatism that teaching kids about premarital sex is morally wrong, that even talking about premarital sex is wrong (except, of course, in the case of talking about how premarital sex is wrong).
It’s not like the data in this article hasn’t been anecdotally (if not empirically) available to people with any degree of common sense since the beginning of time. Everyone knows and has always known that teenagers are going to have sex no matter what we tell them. Clearly people who advocate abstinence-only education have been fooling themselves in the name of a bigger picture goal of maintaining some kind of moral backbone of society. There’s no reason to think that this report is going to change their minds.
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at January 24, 2004 08:53 PM
